Rockets

The point is I asked who sets the speed limits and you said the police and I challenged you on that and then you suggested I was questioning your "expertise" by asking that question. But, in fact, it is the local traffic authority who sets the speed limit and not the police. So I was right to ask the question wasn't I because what you were saying was wrong?

Well, who said I was questioning your expertise? But are you sure, the very same Google search will tell you it is local traffic authorities that set the speed limit. Who are the local traffic authorities in Southwark; TFL for major roads; Southwark council for local roads. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits

Who sets the 20mph speed limit - it's not the police is it but the local authority isn't it? Drive from Southwark into Bromley and the speed limit changes from 20mph to 30mph.

There clearly isn't one but this is a well trodden path that some of us, me included, have been on the receiving end of previously. Some people have been warned about this in the past but, seemingly, never learn.......

Errr, ever such a knee-jerk response there @malumbu...I am not sure that referring to someone as expressionless is a hate crime - you're making a huge leap with that one and they didn't say they didn't like their facial features - what they are actually being critical of is the lack of use of their facial features.....;-)!

I very much suspect the visitors are not trying to get about London on a daily basis! I agree 20mph makes sense in some places but not all places and the blanket approach is not a smart one. I tend to agree with those who suggest the placement of some cameras in London suggest revenue generation is the paramount objective rather than road safety. I know it is not 20mph but 30 mph limit on the elevated dual carriageway section of the Westway is an utter joke and has nothing to do with road safety but is probably raking in the money - probably from the very visitors to the city who happen to have the misfortune to drive in that way and don't understand the trap that has been set for them!

It is particularly bad again at the moment and we are ring-fenced by endless roadworks. Gridlock around the A205 near the stables too because of roadworks. It's getting ridiculous - Lordship Lane was backed up around Goose Green and beyond this morning seemingly because the resurfacing machine was still parked and was creating a huge pinch point.

@Earl Aelfheah I agree but not just nonsense reporting - is anyone not concerned that the Mayor's office has then repeated this claim as part of their press release - is no-one in the Mayor's office doing any fact checking? This is utterly, utterly misleading and the Mayor has put his name to it and has been amplifying it. https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted

@malumbu the 200 years comment from Carlton's article seems to be about the combined Nox and No2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) Carlton wrote: London does not meet legal limits for noxious gases and sooty particles and, at the current rate of improvement, the city won’t achieve international “clean air” standards for another 193 years. Then when I looked at the report and I cannot find where is calls out 193 years for No2 specifically - there is a line but it is not clear in what context it is being used. Interestingly, and as an aside, the research points to the proliferation of motorbikes and mopeds as one of the reasons London air quality was not falling as quickly as in Paris. All I found was this within the report and it is not clear whether the 193 year comment is in relation to NO2 alone or the combined NO2 and PM: Trends in NOX, NO2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) for 2005–2016 in background and roadside locations; and trends in traffic increments were calculated in both cities to address their impact. Trends in traffic counts and the distribution in Euro standards for diesel vehicles were also evaluated. Linear-mixed effect models were built to determine the main determinants of traffic concentrations. There was an overall increase in roadside NO2 in 2005–2009 in both cities followed by a decrease of ∼5% year−1 from 2010. Downward trends were associated with the introduction of Euro V heavy vehicles. Despite NO2 decreasing, at current rates, roads will need 20 (Paris) and 193 years (London) to achieve the European Limit Value (40 μg m−3 annual mean). Am I missing something?

Ha ha @malumbu these sentences are just brilliantly Alan Patridge! 😉 Bravo!

Yeah the usual suspects are trying their usual tricks....the numbers are there to see and are taken from STATS19 so good that there is finally some data sources showing the scale of the problem and now the bar has been set for further comparisons on whether the problem is getting better or worse.

And he's done this 200 years early...wow he is a miracle worker! Anyone got the figures for how PM2 is doing in comparison because surely that must have seen similar progress....or was this not just of the mayor's doing....;-)

Clearly cycles do not pose the biggest threat to pedestrians - no-one is arguing that but you have to agree that cycles do pose the biggest growing threat to pedestrians would you not? Is there another category of road user that saw a 20% year-on-year jump on causing injuries to pedestrians? After all, this is a thread about red light jumping cyclists yet you have, once again, tried to make it all about cars...... Maybe put your obsession with cars to one side for a minute, take a step back and ask whether a 20% year on year increase is acceptable or whether the cycle lobby is actually acknowledging the problem exists. When I read some posts on this thread I cannot help but believe what the person who lost his wife to a cyclist said is true: "These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads” It is so enlightening when you read the long term threads on this forum that for a long time many accuse anyone who says that cyclists are beginning to pose a real problem as imagining it or, seemingly not visiting regularly enough to be able to say if there are regular incidents (I suspect some of us visit those cycle danger hotspots a lot more than some of your folks posting from further afield) and when stats do turn up showing there is an increasing problem the conversation gets diverted to those issues relative to the issues posed by cars. Why are so many of you afraid to actually acknowledge there is a problem - the longer you turn a blind-eye to it the worse the problem gets and more draconian the controls put in place to control it are likely to be.

Only if those cyclists are not hitting pedestrians which, increasingly, they are - 20% year on year increase..... It was two lines actually and you missed out probably the most important one in context of the 24 times stat... However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. So what do you conclude from that - most people will conclude that drivers are posing a decreasing risk to pedestrians whilst cyclists are posing an increasing risk. And don't suggest I am trying to minimise anything: let me make this very clear that no injury to anyone should be accepted by there are two clear paths here: one is getting better whilst one is getting worse. Ahem......meanwhile (well a couple of years ago) in the Guardian.... Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars by Peter Walker..... .https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/17/cyclists-grant-shapps-culture-wars

Oh I am very much looking forward to the next Peter Walker or Carlton Reid article that many of you can direct your newly found impartiality/bias/culture war radar to.....are the Telegraph being any more biased than they are in their coverage? 😉 Are the Telegraph wrong to say billions have been invested in cycling? Why does that so upset you? Didn't the Tories pledge 2bn around Covid for cycling investment? Given the millions spent on Dulwich Square you can see how it would soon tot up! Regardless of all of the deflection and distraction tactics being employed by the usual suspect this quote from a man whose wife was killed by a cyclist will no doubt strike a cord with many: He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament. “These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads” My how so much of that rings true....

What about the rest of the article @malumbu....sigh....

These paragraphs show how bad the problem is getting and help steer the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" brigade. I also think bad cycling is also a contributing factor to the fact that cyclist KSI per millions of miles cycled is on the increase again after years of decrease. Some cyclists are riding like they are entering the Darwen Awards. Exerpt from Telegraph piece: Cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists. However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. In 2024, there were 14,727 injuries to pedestrians after collisions with cars. Matt Briggs has campaigned for cycling laws to be updated since his wife, Kim, died after being hit by a cyclist riding a “fixie” bike with only one working brake. He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament. “These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads”

Displacement is very much at the centre of the council's CPZ strategy - I suspect they might have an internal motto of "One street at a time, to reap the gold mine"

A reminder @Earl Aelfheah I was not the one who brought illegal ebikes into the discussion about cyclists jumping red lights...I think you'll find it was brought in as a "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights" deflection tactic! ;-)

Or say they arent cars that are jumping the red lights but a subset of cars that should not be considered cars....

Alternative interpretations are available. "Showing yourself up further"....that made be chuckle out loud! 😉 BTW at what point do you think a bicycle magically morphs itself into an electric motorcycle or moped? Absolutely. If we can get passed the arguments over the vows...Tickets will be sold for seats to the divorce proceedings though! 😉

Ha ha….is it not the cycle lobby who makes the bold headlines about the increases in cycling figures? In my defence do you see me making the same proclamations about cars…..no didn’t think so….. Do you mean an illegal e-bike? And are you trying to claim that somehow all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes because they are very few and far between….and are actually normally the choice of those partaking in illegal activities. To many of those who travel around London the vast majority of problems are caused by those either on normal pedal cycles, delivery rider bikes or Lime bikes…..(in other words….cyclists ) or are Lime bikes now to be classified as less speedy electric motorbikes……🤣

@Earl Aelfheah thanks...making the point for me. I am not disputing cycling is on the increase. What I am saying is, and as both you and @malumbu have both wonderfully demonstrated (thank you both for that) is that on the one hand the cycle lobby celebrates the increase in cycling but in the same breath then says that everyone needs to differentiate between types of cyclists and that it is "daft lumping all cyclists together" when you claim a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping. Folks, you cannot have it both ways - but please keep going as between the two of you you're doing a great job validating our points! 😉

The news that this has dropped is good news indeed but very interested to understand why they have excluded the only 3 sites that failed to reach the threshold. they seem to mention the siting of the monitors. Also the headline in the press release is ludicrous - 200 years earlier than predicted just dilutes the impact of the story and I am sure makes people question whether the Mayor is just doing a bit of showboating. Of course, will the same high bar be reached for other pollutants (PM2.5 etc) that were also said to be addressed by Ulez etc? The Defra report does cover those other pollutants but the Mayor's press release makes no reference to them.

As I said, I rest my case. If you think it has holes in that's utterly predictable and your prerogative but anyone paying any attention (I doubt they will be to be fair) will know the truth!